From: Dan Shafer [mailto:dshafer at yahoo.com]

>I've read this email several times now and I keep coming up 
>with one question:
>what is "broken" that you are proposing to "fix" with this 
>approach? You refer
>to your notion of views as "more natural" than object-oriented 
>programming, yet
>when I look around me in the world my software must live in -- 
>which is also,
>by the way, the world it needs to emulate or represent -- I 
>see objects, not
>views. To me, the true beauty and joy of object-oriented 
>programming derives
>from its very naturalness. Views, OTOH, seem to me to be an artificial
>construct on top of information, a construct for which I cannot find a
>corresponding element in Nature.

Dan, you see these things because you've been trained to see them.  If you
tried to see Views in nature you'd see them as well.  Objects are a use of
metaphor, not a natural law.  There are other metaphors we can use -- or
discard -- as appropriate.

To the original poter: Anyhow, there's some info on a system somewhat like
what you proposed at http://www.aspectj.com.  It's definitely not the same
thing as what you want (in fact, I prefer your system), but it addresses
some of the same concerns.

-Billy